Bug 509883

I've agreed to sponsor you, so no need for the NEEDSPONSOR tag.

rpmlint output:
sipcalc.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Sipcalc
sipcalc.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Sipcalc
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

- Drop "Sipcalc is" from the summary.

Also, learn to run rpmlint on your packages. Whenever you make a submission you should post the output in the request.

- You might want to change the .gz of the manfile to .*, since it is possible that the compression format changes in the future.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add ChangeLog to %doc.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

When you have done a few informal reviews I will formally approve this package and daemonize. I suggest doing them on e.g. python- packages, which you can find on the review queue [1].

Please review only packages that aren't tagged with the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tag, since I will have to check your review.

Also, have you gotten yourself a Fedora account and applied for packager group membership yet?


[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

(In reply to comment #3)
> When you have done a few informal reviews I will formally approve this package
> and daemonize. I suggest doing them on e.g. python- packages, which you can
> find on the review queue [1].

.. but of course first you have to fix the two issues raised in the review.

I actually had run rpmlint (In reply to comment #2)
> rpmlint output:
> sipcalc.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Sipcalc
> sipcalc.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Sipcalc
> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
> 
> - Drop "Sipcalc is" from the summary.
> 
Done.

> Also, learn to run rpmlint on your packages. Whenever you make a submission you
> should post the output in the request.

I had actually done an rpmlint on it:

[makerpm@centosvm SPECS]$ rpmlint -i sipcalc.spec ../SRPMS/sipcalc-1.1.4-1.src.rpm 
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[makerpm@centosvm SPECS]$ rpmlint --version
rpmlint version 0.85 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva

I guess maybe it's an older version since it's a CentOS 5 vm. I'm in the process of setting up a Fedora 11 VM to get more up-to-date packaging tools

I'll also make sure I post my rpmlint output in the future.
> 
> - You might want to change the .gz of the manfile to .*, since it is possible
> that the compression format changes in the future.
> 
Done

> 
> MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
> duplicate. OK
> MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
> consistently. OK
> MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
> MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
> MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
> Licensing Guidelines. OK
> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> OK
> MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
> provided in the spec URL. OK
> MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
> MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
> MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
> MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
> MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
> that owns the directory. OK
> MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
> MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
> MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
> MUST: Clean section exists. OK
> MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
> 
> MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
> runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
> - Add ChangeLog to %doc.
> 
Done

> MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
> MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
> MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
> MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
> ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
> MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
> package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
> MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
> MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
> MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
> MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
> SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
> SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
> upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
> SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK  

Updated version posted.

[makerpm@centosvm SPECS]$ rpmlint -i sipcalc.spec ../SRPMS/sipcalc-1.1.4-2.src.rpm 
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

The package has been

APPROVED.

Continue with the CVS procedure:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure

Contact me by email if you have problems importing, building and/or pushing the update.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: sipcalc
Short Description: "Advanced" console-based ip subnet calculator
Owners: giesen
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-4 EL-5
InitialCC:

CVS done.

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el4

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc11

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc10

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el5

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sipcalc'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0084

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sipcalc'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-4/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0088

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sipcalc'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7706

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sipcalc'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7720

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

sipcalc-1.1.4-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.